Creationism claims that it is scientifically valid. You seem to be arguing that there are NON-scientific reasons for supporting the idea of creationism.
Creationism claims to be scientifically valid. If the only reason for supporting it are non-scientific reasons than this argument itself undermines Creationism. It’s either scientifically valid or it isn’t. If it isn’t scientifically valid and you nevertheless accept it as an article of faith then it doesn’t really do for us what Creationists claim it does, does it?
I appreciate your position but I think it’s problematic.
When the definition of science is expanded to empirical materialism, that allows for speculation and is built on unchallengeable presumptions, it is a philosophy that reinforces its own bias. Science, narrowly defined, is not sufficient to explain all knowledge, it is among the most useful ways to understand reality but it has limits. It is simple hubris to assume science is ne plus ultra.
Both the creationist and the non-creationist are looking at present reality and trying to make it fit into the framework of their worldview, but the worldview is a priori. Both camps interpret "evidence" a posteriori according to their presuppositions. Both become self-reinforcing simply because their methods are beyond the scientific method and synthesized with beliefs about reality that are not scientifically verifiable. When the evolutionist's and cosmologist's speculative hypothesis were accepted as valid science, consistency of method must allow for us embarrassing young earth creationists a seat at the table. I'm not embarrassed and I certainly will not be shamed for a consistency of thought that is antithetical to a increasingly secularized orthodoxy.